"When questioned during the vote, Kinzler acknowledged that the bill will allow landlords to refuse to rent to gay people. that's correct He Said

Please tell me this VICIOUS law will be challenged as unconstitutional!!!!!!!!!!!!

I Don't Care

Homosexuality is a Sin it says so in the Bible it also says Dragons Exist and Slavery and Rape are approved by God

Holy hell, I can't believe that THIS had been over-looked!!!

Loading Demographics...

Click an icon to see demographic results

Display unknown and private

there's no way this survives constitutional review...

28 votes

32%

"When questioned during the vote, Kinzler acknowledged that the bill will allow landlords to refuse to rent to gay people. that's correct He Said

5 votes

6%

Please tell me this VICIOUS law will be challenged as unconstitutional!!!!!!!!!!!!

29 votes

33%

I Don't Care

15 votes

17%

Homosexuality is a Sin it says so in the Bible it also says Dragons Exist and Slavery and Rape are approved by God

5 votes

6%

Holy hell, I can't believe that THIS had been over-looked!!!

5 votes

6%

You!

Add Photos & Videos

By an overwhelming vote of 89-27, tonight the GOP-dominated Kansas House voted to legalize anti-gay discrimination based on religious objections. The bill, which was sponsored by Rep. Lance Kinzer (R-Olathe), is primarily aimed at the small college town of Lawrence, the one remaining place in the entire state where gays have some legal protections.

TOPEKA — The Kansas House on Wednesday advanced legislation that would allow a religious defense to discriminate against gays.

Two Lawrence representatives attacked the bill, called the Kansas Preservation of Religious Freedom Act, as an attempt to destroy a city of Lawrence anti-discrimination ordinance that includes sexual orientation.

In an impassioned speech, state Rep. Barbara Ballard, D-Lawrence, said, “I am very proud of my Lawrence community, and I’m very proud of the ordinance that we passed.” Ballard added, “Discrimination is an injustice. It is an injustice to everyone.”

House Minority Leader Paul Davis, D-Lawrence, said, “I don’t believe it is ever right to discriminate against someone because of their sexual orientation.”

But State Rep. Lance Kinzer, R-Olathe, defended his bill, saying it was meant to make sure government could not infringe on an individual’s religious beliefs.

“Free exercise of religion is at the core of who we are as a people,” Kinzer said.

Davis asked Kinzer if under Kinzer’s bill an apartment owner could cite his religious beliefs to fight a complaint if he refused to rent to a same-sex couple.

“That is generally correct,” Kinzer said.

Davis said that was unfair to the city of Lawrence, which is the only city in Kansas that has an anti-discrimination ordinance designed to protect people based on sexual orientation.

State Rep. Charlie Roth, R-Salina, said that Kinzer’s legislation was “homophobic” and that it will hurt Kansas’ image. “It sends the message that Kansas is not welcoming. Kansas will become known as the land of the pure as defined by the few,” Roth said.

But Kinzer said local units of government should not be allowed to engage in religious discrimination against its citizens.

The bill would prohibit state and local governments from substantially burdening a person’s religious beliefs unless the government can prove that the burden is advancing a compelling government interest and is the least restrictive way of advancing that interest.

The measure is supported by Gov. Sam Brownback’s administration, the Kansas Catholic Conference and Concerned Women for America of Kansas. It was opposed by Lawrence officials, the Kansas Equality Coalition and the state chapter of the National Organization for Women.

Right before advancing the Kansas Preservation of Freedom Act, the House gave preliminary approval to putting a chapel for prayer and meditation in the Statehouse.

Both proposals will require a final vote before going to the Senate. Those votes will probably be taken Thursday.

More polls by ☥☽✪☾DAW ☽✪☾

Please tell me this VICIOUS law will be challenged as unconstitutional!!!!!!!...

Trying to lock out certain US Citizens and residents by claiming "religious ideologies on sexual orientation" in a secular public domain regulated by public laws..... Is selective discrimination and unconstitutional. Lets see if the governor of Kansas follows Jan Brewers lead and vetoes it.

I wonder if these blittering idiots bothered to read Romer v Evans SCOTUS

The case was argued on October 10, 1995. On May 20, 1996, the court ruled 6-3 that Colorado's Amendment 2 was unconstitutional, though on different reasoning than the Colorado courts. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, and was joined by John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer.

To the contrary, the amendment imposes a special disability upon those persons alone. Homosexuals are forbidden the safeguards that others enjoy or may seek without constraint.

Kennedy argued that protection offered by antidiscrimination laws was not a "special right" because they protected fundamental rights already enjoyed by all other citizens. Though antidiscrimination laws "enumerated" certain groups that they protected, this merely served to put others on notice (i.e., the enumeration was merely declaratory).

Instead of applying "strict scrutiny" to Amendment 2 (as Colorado Supreme Court had required) Kennedy wrote that it did not even meet the much lower requirement of having a rational relationship to a legitimate government...

I wonder if these blittering idiots bothered to read Romer v Evans SCOTUS

The case was argued on October 10, 1995. On May 20, 1996, the court ruled 6-3 that Colorado's Amendment 2 was unconstitutional, though on different reasoning than the Colorado courts. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, and was joined by John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer.

To the contrary, the amendment imposes a special disability upon those persons alone. Homosexuals are forbidden the safeguards that others enjoy or may seek without constraint.

Kennedy argued that protection offered by antidiscrimination laws was not a "special right" because they protected fundamental rights already enjoyed by all other citizens. Though antidiscrimination laws "enumerated" certain groups that they protected, this merely served to put others on notice (i.e., the enumeration was merely declaratory).

Instead of applying "strict scrutiny" to Amendment 2 (as Colorado Supreme Court had required) Kennedy wrote that it did not even meet the much lower requirement of having a rational relationship to a legitimate government purpose:

Its sheer breadth is so discontinuous with the reasons offered for it that the amendment seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class that it affects; it lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests.

And:

[Amendment 2] is at once too narrow and too broad. It identifies persons by a single trait and then denies them protection across the board. The resulting disqualification of a class of persons from the right to seek specific protection from the law is unprecedented in our jurisprudence.

Kennedy did not go into depth in rejecting the claims put forward in support of the law (protecting the rights of landlords to evict gay tenants if they found homosexuality morally offensive, etc.) because he held that the law was so unique as to "confound this normal process of judicial review" and "defies...conventional inquiry." This conclusion was supported by his assertion that "It is not within our constitutional tradition to enact laws of this sort." Finding that "laws of the kind now before us raise the inevitable inference that the disadvantage imposed is born of animosity toward the class of persons affected," the Court implied that the passage of Amendment 2 was born of a "bare...desire to harm a politically unpopular group".

Blithering idiots rarely bother to read case law. And most of the legislators involved in this bill probably don't care whether it is rejected or not.

In fact, they may be COUNTING on it being rejected by a "liberal" court -- that anger may be designed to guarantee they get enough votes in November. After all, the base is hardly excited by Romney, so they may not even vote in large numbers... unless they get angry about some issue or such.

All of which has been backfiring on them for some time now. Besides no decision on that would take place unless someone with standing went directly to the SCOTUS to enforce Romer v Evans on Kansas with a demand for a writ of compliance. In which case SCOTUS could take direct immediate action but that is very doubtful.

Why pick black people?
If they didnt want me in their house because part of my belief system offendedthem or my ethnicity was a problem, I would move on.
I have experienced such things, personally, in the past.

Lemmeaskyathis: If I had made the same claim you made, without knowing me at all, and knowing only that this claim, true or not, would bolster my point; would you believe me? If you would you'd be naive. I don't know you. I don't know if you're an honest person or not. What I do know is that the odds that you've been denied housing because you're white, or because you're Christian, in the United States of America is slim to none. Not impossible, but extremely slim. I'm not calling you a liar because I know you to be dishonest. I'm doubting your claim, because it's pretty far fetched.
And to be honest, I could honestly give a damn whether you forgive me or not. I was just trying to be less of a dick, than I would have been if I had ACTUALLY just come right out and called you a liar.

I said "Would you feel the same way if this law allowed people to discriminate against Christians or black people?"
You said "I have experienced such things, personally, in the past"
This seemed pretty clear at the time. Am I missing something?

Simple Reason we do not Discriminate or allow Discrimination of any kind it leads to hate hate leads to things like thisHate leads to Violence you wouldnt like it if someone discriminated against youso dont disciminate against others

Many states had referendums that voted against homosexual marriages, yet many also OK the civil unions. I have no problem with homosexuals living a certain lifestyle. But why do politicans still pass laws against the general publics vote ? What I don't like is the extreme contradictions, lies, and destruction that the left utilizes in promoting their agenda. Say what you will about me, as I could care less, but at least if you did it would only prove my point, as your poll answers prove.
Pablo

Do you see Christians destroying churches, putting human feces on paintings of Christ and other religious articles, teaching children about homosexuality when they ought to be learnling about the three R's......